Self-Identity

[Harbal]

Animals may make noises or communicate verbally, to call-out and identify their own kin, but their communication is crude and base level by comparison. It's not sophisticated.

I suspect I am not alone in thinking that is also a pretty fair description of you.

Although "wizards22" ability at communication was NOT that much MORE CRUDE, NOR LESS SOPHISTICATED, then the 'general' human being's ability was, at the time and period of these writings,

But very noticeable, nonetheless.

[Veritas Aequitas]

he is likely to develop some sort of proto- sense of self which would be more aware than the dogs which nurture him.

You mean... even a feral child is more intelligent/cognizant than dogs?

IF ..
It is very possible relatively because the feral human child has inherent human potentials of which some potential unfolds with age, e.g. puberty.

[Wizard22]

IF ..
It is very possible relatively because the feral human child has inherent human potentials of which some potential unfolds with age, e.g. puberty.

Interesting how you ignore how intelligence and its potentials relays between feral children and dogs.

How would intelligence, hypothetically, affect Sense-of-Self?

[Age]

All humans are programmed with the potential to manifest a basic "sense of self" which is embedded within their genes and DNA and represented by the appropriate PHYSICAL neural algorithm and correlates.
It is only those with damaged program that they are unable to progress to a sense of self.

Here we HAVE ANOTHER who ACTUALLY BELIEVES that 'it' IS NOT DAMAGED, and IS FAR MORE SUPERIOR THAN "others" are here.

What ALL of these people seem to COMPLETELY MISS and MISUNDERSTAND that ABSOLUTELY NONE OF 'those human beings', back when this was being written, ACTUALLY KNEW THE ANSWER to THE QUESTION, 'Who am 'I'?'. WHICH, LITERALLY, MEANS 'they' HAD YET NOT COME-TO-KNOW the REAL or True Self.

Having JUST A 'sense of self' is about as ENLIGHTENING as having a 'sense of there might be more', for example.

Just having A 'sense of self' will in NO WAY bring one CLOSER to KNOWING and UNDERSTANDING, 'Who 'I' AM, EXACTLY'.

Which 'I' FOUND to be FAR MORE ENLIGHTENING, ENRICHING, AND ENTERTAINING. UNCOVERING WHO, and WHAT, 'I' AM EXACTLY unfolds infinitely, and exponentially.

The potential to a sense of self unfold progressively as soon as one is born and continue to be active till one's teenage year and slowly in the adult stage.
In this case, the basis sense of self develop into a unique self-identity as influenced continually by one's genes, psychological states, environment, social, culture, etc.

And SO who and/or what is the 'self', EXACTLY, which 'you', "veritas aequitas", have IDENTIFIED? Or, are 'you' STILL in the formation of 'that' 'self-discovery'?

Or, BECAUSE 'you' are a Truly CLOSED human being here, 'you' WILL NOT ANSWER 'this QUESTION'? Which, THANK FULLY, 'you' WILL, ONCE AGAIN, PROVE True, FOR 'me' here.

In later years when the appropriate PHYSICAL neural algorithm and correlates are damaged, the self of self can be lost, e.g. in the case of serious Alzheimer or other sort of brain damage that deactivate the self-sense.

But WHEN I ASK ANY of 'you', human beings, PRIOR to ANY form of 'memory loss' sets in, 'WHO are 'you'?', OR, 'Who am 'I'?', NONE of 'you' provide ANY SUFFICIENT ANSWER.

Note the sense of self is also shut off when a person is asleep, under-anasthetic or is in a coma.

Okay NOTED.

Are 'we' ALSO SUPPOSED TO NOTE that if ANY 'thoughts' AT ALL are being RECOGNIZED when a so-called 'person' so-calls sleeps, is under 'anesthetic', and/or when is in a coma, AS WELL?

I want to draw attention to other potentials embedded in the genes and DNA such as the puberty potential and also the moral potential as a matter of fact that unfolds slowly in time.

OKAY.

But note that speaking like 'this' just makes 'you' sound MORE FOOLISH.

[Wizard22]

OKAY.

But note that speaking like 'this' just makes 'you' sound MORE FOOLISH.

Veritas doesn't sound foolish, Age. You, however, do.

Don't bog my thread down with your spamming.

[Harbal]

OKAY.

But note that speaking like 'this' just makes 'you' sound MORE FOOLISH.

Veritas doesn't sound foolish, Age. You, however, do.

If I may offer a second opinion; not only does Veritas sound foolish, he comes across as completely bonkers.

[Iwannaplato]

How do people, as young children, begin to develop their "Sense of Self"? How did/do you? What is "you" or "I"?

They are constantly getting attention(hopefully)/love(hopefully) from parents/family. They are hearing about what humans are, what boys are, what ______________are. They are hearing tales about people. And nowadays media of all kinds constantly telling them what a person is, what a good person is. So there are generalized messages aimed at people in general which they get. Then are are specific messages and reactions that they are getting from people who know them. Then they are trying things, doing things, and getting feedback from the world. This went well, this didn't. They may start forming ideas about their abilities through this interaction with things and people. Whatever innate tendencies they have will affect how they take things and what they can do from the start and how hard they try and to some extent character, temperment, interests and tendencies - though all the role models and reactions from others are also affecting these things. Comparing oneself to others. Identifying with these people over here and not those over there. Striving after a while to meet goals based on all of the above and succeeding or not creates a continuous flow of information to build a sense of self from.

[Flannel Jesus]

How do people, as young children, begin to develop their "Sense of Self"? How did/do you? What is "you" or "I"?

They are constantly getting attention(hopefully)/love(hopefully) from parents/family. They are hearing about what humans are, what boys are, what ______________are. They are hearing tales about people. And nowadays media of all kinds constantly telling them what a person is, what a good person is. So there are generalized messages aimed at people in general which they get. Then are are specific messages and reactions that they are getting from people who know them. Then they are trying things, doing things, and getting feedback from the world. This went well, this didn't. They may start forming ideas about their abilities through this interaction with things and people. Whatever innate tendencies they have will affect how they take things and what they can do from the start and how hard they try and to some extent character, temperment, interests and tendencies - though all the role models and reactions from others are also affecting these things. Comparing oneself to others. Identifying with these people over here and not those over there. Striving after a while to meet goals based on all of the above and succeeding or not creates a continuous flow of information to build a sense of self from.

What I find interesting is the question of how people gain a sense of self that is completely AGAINST all these forces, or at least indifferent to them. People who end up with a sense of self that isn't based on what other people find likeable or virtuous or worth rewarding.

[Iwannaplato]

What I find interesting is the question of how people gain a sense of self that is completely AGAINST all these forces, or at least indifferent to them. People who end up with a sense of self that isn't based on what other people find likeable or virtuous or worth rewarding.

Some definitely rebel. Though I think that often this can be (in part) due to the kinds of feedback/attention/messages they get also. But we do have built in character traits. We are not tabula rasa and separated twin studies seem to confirm this.

I think however it is very hard not to be affected by what we are told humans are, boys are, for example, even nonverbally told. We build up all sorts of norms in people. Perhaps they decide to be a criminal, but they are still likely conceiving all sorts of things via nurture - their criminal personas even will have aspects of movie criminals. Ideas of masculinity will still be affecting them - in addition to whatever in built in. When to show emotion, when not. Which emotions are ok. How much.

They'll likely still seem to have American personalities to Japanese people in Japan or see to be 'English' with the Amish.

[Age]

All humans are programmed with the potential to manifest a basic "sense of self" which is embedded within their genes and DNA and represented by the appropriate PHYSICAL neural algorithm and correlates.
It is only those with damaged program that they are unable to progress to a sense of self.

The potential to a sense of self unfold progressively as soon as one is born and continue to be active till one's teenage year and slowly in the adult stage.
In this case, the basis sense of self develop into a unique self-identity as influenced continually by one's genes, psychological states, environment, social, culture, etc.

In later years when the appropriate PHYSICAL neural algorithm and correlates are damaged, the self of self can be lost, e.g. in the case of serious Alzheimer or other sort of brain damage that deactivate the self-sense.

Note the sense of self is also shut off when a person is asleep, under-anasthetic or is in a coma.

I want to draw attention to other potentials embedded in the genes and DNA such as the puberty potential and also the moral potential as a matter of fact that unfolds slowly in time.

How do you account for feral children? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvSMgi23F3o)

I mentioned,
"In this case, the basis sense of self develop into a unique self-identity as influenced continually by one's genes, psychological states, environment, social, culture, etc."

In the case of feral children, their inherent potential for a sense of sense is not triggered and developed via the above necessary elements. My etc. will include parental, siblings and kin influences.

Is there absolutely ANY 'thing' that is NOT 'programmed' within the human being with 'inherent potential' for?

you appear to be BELIEVE that ALL humans are programmed with the 'potential' for ANY or EVERY 'thing', that is; when the 'thing' FITS IN with your OWN IMAGINED 'inherent potential'.

[Age]

I mentioned,
"In this case, the basis sense of self develop into a unique self-identity as influenced continually by one's genes, psychological states, environment, social, culture, etc."

In the case of feral children, their inherent potential for a sense of sense is not triggered and developed via the above necessary elements. My etc. will include parental, siblings and kin influences.

So would then 'Self' be a matter purely of Nurturing rather than Nature, since it is not within Nature that a human develops a (considerable) sense-of-self?

"I" am purely Cultural? Purely textual? Purely literary? Even without the hyperbole, by matter of degree, the "Self" is a development of human civilization/domestication.

What are the implications then for "Self-Consciousness"? Can this be interpreted as "Cultural-Consciousness" directly?

The sense of self is both Nature and Nurture.
All humans are programmed with a sense-of-self potential via their genes and DNA, this is the Nature part of it.
However this self-of-sense potential can only unfold effectively with the right human nurturing factors.

As such, IF a human is nurtured by a pack of dogs [if that is possible], he is not likely to have a sense of self like the normal human person.

But that one would have a 'sense of self' like the 'normal dog person', correct?

However, I believe because the feral child is basically and naturally a human being with a sense of self potential within his genes and DNA, he is likely to develop some sort of proto- sense of self which would be more aware than the dogs which nurture him.

[Age]

This sense of 'being different', or 'separate', which IS ACTUALLY 'ILLUSORY', as "dontaskme" would say, then forms a 'sense of self', which AGAIN is False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, but which ACTUALLY exists, though just in ILLUSION.

If everybody and everything is the same, and "I" pinch "myself", then you should feel pain too, since you are no different than I.

LOL Saying, 'If EVERY body and EVERY thing IS THE SAME', is NONSENSICAL.

How do you explain this?

The words AFTER the 'If' word ARE NONSENSICAL, so the words after the 'then' word DO NOT and COULD NOT LOGICALLY FOLLOW, that is; if the sentence would want to FIT IN and WORK WITH what ACTUALLY REALLY EXISTS.

The 'I', by the way, IS NEVER a human being. So, if the body, which 'you' are IN, pinched itself, then the ONLY nerve endings that would feel, and thus experience, 'this pinch' are the ones in 'that body' ALONE.

[Age]

I suspect I am not alone in thinking that is also a pretty fair description of you.

Although "wizards22" ability at communication was NOT that much MORE CRUDE, NOR LESS SOPHISTICATED, then the 'general' human being's ability was, at the time and period of these writings,

But very noticeable, nonetheless.

Yes, True.

[Age]

he is likely to develop some sort of proto- sense of self which would be more aware than the dogs which nurture him.

You mean... even a feral child is more intelligent/cognizant than dogs?

IF ..
It is very possible relatively because the feral human child has inherent human potentials of which some potential unfolds with age, e.g. puberty.

So, what you are, essentially, just more or less saying is that a human being has the inherent potential to being a human being.

[Age]

OKAY.

But note that speaking like 'this' just makes 'you' sound MORE FOOLISH.

Veritas doesn't sound foolish, Age. You, however, do.

Are you BRAVE ENOUGH to SHOW WHERE, and WHY?

Or will you just make ANOTHER CLAIM, and then RUN AWAY, AGAIN?

Don't bog my thread down with your spamming.

What do you think or BELIEVE my 'message' IS, EXACTLY, which you CLAIM I am sending out here?

'I', by the way, am FREE to POINT OUT and SHOW YOUR CONTRADICTIONS, INCONSISTENCIES, and UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS here.

'I' am ALSO FREE to QUESTION and CHALLENGE 'you' here. Or are 'AFRAID' of 'this' ALSO?